Yolo County Board of Supervisors Chairwoman Mariko Yamada greeted Davis Democractic Club members last night at their annual Valentine’s Day Dinner. Current county challenges include the General Plan Update and a Davis Area Library Services measure to be placed on the November 2007 ballot. Yamada also said she would be joining Yolo County Clerk Recorder Freddie Oakley at noon for the issuance of “Certificates of Inequality”. At
the conclusion of her remarks, Supervisor Yamada informally stated that she was preparing for a run at the 8th Assembly District seat currently held by Lois Wolk. A formal announcement is expected before the end of February.A surprise guest appearance was made by former Congressional candidate Charlie Brown 
who valiantly ran against right wing Republican John Doolittle for the Fourth Congressional District of California. Brown a retired Air Force Lt. Colonel, narrowly was defeated last November by a narrow 49-46 margin in the most heavily Republican District of California. Brown announced that his fight was not over as Doolittle continues his support for the Iraq war and the corruption charges against him continue to mount. Brown has kept his Congressional Committee alive as an exploratory committee and appears to be seriously weighing another challenge against John Doolittle. Brown was greeted with a warm and enthusiastic welcome from a strong contingent of Davis Democrats.
Other elected officials on hand were
Assemblywoman and future State Senate Candidate Lois Wolk, Davis Mayor Sue Greenwald, Davis City Councilmember Lamar Heystek, County Assessor Joel Butler, Davis School Board Member Sheila Allen, and Yolo County Guardian Cass Sylvia. Allen stated strongly her opposition to the closing of Valley Oak and her opposition to the idea of pitting neighborhood against neighborhood. She strongly supported the ideal of keeping all elementary schools open.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Great group! THIS IS OUR TIME!
Great group! THIS IS OUR TIME!
Great group! THIS IS OUR TIME!
Great group! THIS IS OUR TIME!
Mariko’s continued push for inclusion of development or “study” of the Davis northwest quadrant and the Covell Village site in the County general plan has alienated many of her would-be supporters.
It is a shame that she has chosen this path.
Mariko’s continued push for inclusion of development or “study” of the Davis northwest quadrant and the Covell Village site in the County general plan has alienated many of her would-be supporters.
It is a shame that she has chosen this path.
Mariko’s continued push for inclusion of development or “study” of the Davis northwest quadrant and the Covell Village site in the County general plan has alienated many of her would-be supporters.
It is a shame that she has chosen this path.
Mariko’s continued push for inclusion of development or “study” of the Davis northwest quadrant and the Covell Village site in the County general plan has alienated many of her would-be supporters.
It is a shame that she has chosen this path.
“Study” is just that – study, which is a reasonable position. Let’s not read too much into it.
“Study” is just that – study, which is a reasonable position. Let’s not read too much into it.
“Study” is just that – study, which is a reasonable position. Let’s not read too much into it.
“Study” is just that – study, which is a reasonable position. Let’s not read too much into it.
Mariko will be a strong Assembly Member. She has not alienated her supporters. Those that know her and trust will look at her record since it speaks volumes to where she stands on the General Plan issue.
Instead of believing rumors you should call her up and schedule an appt. to see her.
Mariko will provide the type of continued leadership we need in the 8th A.D. Just look at the big box growth and sprawl in West Sacramento to see and understand where Cabaldon stands on growth and sprawl.
Mariko will be a strong Assembly Member. She has not alienated her supporters. Those that know her and trust will look at her record since it speaks volumes to where she stands on the General Plan issue.
Instead of believing rumors you should call her up and schedule an appt. to see her.
Mariko will provide the type of continued leadership we need in the 8th A.D. Just look at the big box growth and sprawl in West Sacramento to see and understand where Cabaldon stands on growth and sprawl.
Mariko will be a strong Assembly Member. She has not alienated her supporters. Those that know her and trust will look at her record since it speaks volumes to where she stands on the General Plan issue.
Instead of believing rumors you should call her up and schedule an appt. to see her.
Mariko will provide the type of continued leadership we need in the 8th A.D. Just look at the big box growth and sprawl in West Sacramento to see and understand where Cabaldon stands on growth and sprawl.
Mariko will be a strong Assembly Member. She has not alienated her supporters. Those that know her and trust will look at her record since it speaks volumes to where she stands on the General Plan issue.
Instead of believing rumors you should call her up and schedule an appt. to see her.
Mariko will provide the type of continued leadership we need in the 8th A.D. Just look at the big box growth and sprawl in West Sacramento to see and understand where Cabaldon stands on growth and sprawl.
Run [for Assembly] Mariko, run…
You have my vote.
Run [for Assembly] Mariko, run…
You have my vote.
Run [for Assembly] Mariko, run…
You have my vote.
Run [for Assembly] Mariko, run…
You have my vote.
I know that my wife and I will support Mariko….as she will(if elected) be a truly progressive member of the Assembly, as opposed to our extremely moderate Assemblywoman Wolk.
I know that my wife and I will support Mariko….as she will(if elected) be a truly progressive member of the Assembly, as opposed to our extremely moderate Assemblywoman Wolk.
I know that my wife and I will support Mariko….as she will(if elected) be a truly progressive member of the Assembly, as opposed to our extremely moderate Assemblywoman Wolk.
I know that my wife and I will support Mariko….as she will(if elected) be a truly progressive member of the Assembly, as opposed to our extremely moderate Assemblywoman Wolk.
One shouldn’t jump to conclusions in the middle of a process that involves public participation and input. For example, look at the Best Uses Task Force that is looking into a reorganization of the schools in Davis. At one point or another it was thought that a particular school would close – even the Enterprise reported this. But in the end, maybe no schools will close.
Mariko has an obligation to consider every suggestion or proposal put forward to the Board. This is her lot in life. In the end I hope that she makes her decisions based on a true understanding of the needs and wants of the community.
Mariko has served Yolo County very well.
One shouldn’t jump to conclusions in the middle of a process that involves public participation and input. For example, look at the Best Uses Task Force that is looking into a reorganization of the schools in Davis. At one point or another it was thought that a particular school would close – even the Enterprise reported this. But in the end, maybe no schools will close.
Mariko has an obligation to consider every suggestion or proposal put forward to the Board. This is her lot in life. In the end I hope that she makes her decisions based on a true understanding of the needs and wants of the community.
Mariko has served Yolo County very well.
One shouldn’t jump to conclusions in the middle of a process that involves public participation and input. For example, look at the Best Uses Task Force that is looking into a reorganization of the schools in Davis. At one point or another it was thought that a particular school would close – even the Enterprise reported this. But in the end, maybe no schools will close.
Mariko has an obligation to consider every suggestion or proposal put forward to the Board. This is her lot in life. In the end I hope that she makes her decisions based on a true understanding of the needs and wants of the community.
Mariko has served Yolo County very well.
One shouldn’t jump to conclusions in the middle of a process that involves public participation and input. For example, look at the Best Uses Task Force that is looking into a reorganization of the schools in Davis. At one point or another it was thought that a particular school would close – even the Enterprise reported this. But in the end, maybe no schools will close.
Mariko has an obligation to consider every suggestion or proposal put forward to the Board. This is her lot in life. In the end I hope that she makes her decisions based on a true understanding of the needs and wants of the community.
Mariko has served Yolo County very well.
Interesting comments by Trustee Sheila Allen at the Dem party regarding Valley Oak. I couldn’t agree with her more!
Interesting comments by Trustee Sheila Allen at the Dem party regarding Valley Oak. I couldn’t agree with her more!
Interesting comments by Trustee Sheila Allen at the Dem party regarding Valley Oak. I couldn’t agree with her more!
Interesting comments by Trustee Sheila Allen at the Dem party regarding Valley Oak. I couldn’t agree with her more!
mariko would make a great assemblywoman, and i wish her the very best.with any luck the campaign will be about more than only sprawl issues, as she is not a single-issue candidate, and is a good match for the district in a number of areas.
and while the money will matter, since cabaldon will have the money advantage from the get-go, it is important not to neglect the shoe leather as well, walking precincts in fairfield and vacaville as well as comfortably soapboxing at the davis farmer’s market.
mariko would make a great assemblywoman, and i wish her the very best.with any luck the campaign will be about more than only sprawl issues, as she is not a single-issue candidate, and is a good match for the district in a number of areas.
and while the money will matter, since cabaldon will have the money advantage from the get-go, it is important not to neglect the shoe leather as well, walking precincts in fairfield and vacaville as well as comfortably soapboxing at the davis farmer’s market.
mariko would make a great assemblywoman, and i wish her the very best.with any luck the campaign will be about more than only sprawl issues, as she is not a single-issue candidate, and is a good match for the district in a number of areas.
and while the money will matter, since cabaldon will have the money advantage from the get-go, it is important not to neglect the shoe leather as well, walking precincts in fairfield and vacaville as well as comfortably soapboxing at the davis farmer’s market.
mariko would make a great assemblywoman, and i wish her the very best.with any luck the campaign will be about more than only sprawl issues, as she is not a single-issue candidate, and is a good match for the district in a number of areas.
and while the money will matter, since cabaldon will have the money advantage from the get-go, it is important not to neglect the shoe leather as well, walking precincts in fairfield and vacaville as well as comfortably soapboxing at the davis farmer’s market.
Eli Faircloth spoke on Tuesday on Congressman Thompson’s behalf.
She told us he had spoken on the floor in support of the Democratic resolution, here are his thoughts:
Mr. THOMPSON of California:
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for recognizing me for time.
Mr. Speaker and Members, as a combat veteran, from the bottom of my heart, I say thank you to the brave men and women who have served in Iraq, each with great distinction.
Our troops have done an outstanding job. They have done all that has been asked of them and more. They have performed with the utmost professionalism, making all of us very proud.
Now, I believe it is past time that we start bringing these brave men and women home. They should be home with their families, not in the middle of Iraq’s civil war. Moreover, we shouldn’t be sending more troops into Iraq’s civil war. Some of our service-members have been on two, three, and even four tours of duty in Iraq already.
This escalation would put too much strain on our military and not just our troops. Much of our military’s equipment is damaged. It will take years and billions of dollars to repair it and replace it. Nearly every Reserve and National Guard member has been mobilized. The escalation is in no one’s best interest.
Two weeks ago I joined with my colleague Patrick Murphy from Pennsylvania, a decorated Army captain who served in Iraq, to introduce binding legislation to begin a phased redeployment of our troops out of Iraq. Our bill, which has already attracted 20 co-authors from both sides of the aisle and has a companion bill in the Senate, provides a practical and comprehensive strategy for ending our military involvement in Iraq. It sets a firm deadline for phased redeployment of our troops beginning May 1 with all combat brigades out by March 31 of 2008. It provides a concrete plan for shifting security responsibilities to where they belong: with the Iraqis.
I have visited with our troops in Iraq, and I have talked to those who have been training the Iraqi security forces. They have told me that the U.S. troops have finished their job and that Iraq needs to step up and start securing their country. Americans cannot continue to do it for them.
Our bill recognizes that the President’s escalation plan is a continuation of his failed “stay the course” slogan and it would not allow the increase of troop levels without congressional approval.
Mr. Speaker, the United States cannot win the peace in Iraq. The Iraqis must be the ones to do that. Our bill recognizes this reality and creates a surge in diplomacy, not troops, by creating a special U.S. envoy that will help build relationships between Iraq and their neighbors. Our bill is a strategy for success in Iraq and is the best way to bring our brave men and women home as quickly and safely as possible.
While I strongly believe that today we should be debating and passing our binding solution, H.R. 787, I know that this week’s debate is the first real debate we have had on Iraq in more than 4 years. In this week alone, we will more than quadruple the amount of time given to debate this war since it began.
Thank you, Speaker Pelosi, for bringing this important matter to the floor. This resolution is a critical step in getting our men and women out of this ugly mess, a full blown civil war in Iraq. I support today’s resolution, which joins with the American people in sending the President a loud and clear message that escalation is not the answer. We need to focus on getting our troops out of Iraq as safely and quickly as possible and making sure that the Iraqis step up and assume the security responsibilities for their country.
I also rise to tell those who have served, those who are serving in Iraq today, and their proud families thank you. Your nation thanks you for your great service to our country.
Eli Faircloth spoke on Tuesday on Congressman Thompson’s behalf.
She told us he had spoken on the floor in support of the Democratic resolution, here are his thoughts:
Mr. THOMPSON of California:
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for recognizing me for time.
Mr. Speaker and Members, as a combat veteran, from the bottom of my heart, I say thank you to the brave men and women who have served in Iraq, each with great distinction.
Our troops have done an outstanding job. They have done all that has been asked of them and more. They have performed with the utmost professionalism, making all of us very proud.
Now, I believe it is past time that we start bringing these brave men and women home. They should be home with their families, not in the middle of Iraq’s civil war. Moreover, we shouldn’t be sending more troops into Iraq’s civil war. Some of our service-members have been on two, three, and even four tours of duty in Iraq already.
This escalation would put too much strain on our military and not just our troops. Much of our military’s equipment is damaged. It will take years and billions of dollars to repair it and replace it. Nearly every Reserve and National Guard member has been mobilized. The escalation is in no one’s best interest.
Two weeks ago I joined with my colleague Patrick Murphy from Pennsylvania, a decorated Army captain who served in Iraq, to introduce binding legislation to begin a phased redeployment of our troops out of Iraq. Our bill, which has already attracted 20 co-authors from both sides of the aisle and has a companion bill in the Senate, provides a practical and comprehensive strategy for ending our military involvement in Iraq. It sets a firm deadline for phased redeployment of our troops beginning May 1 with all combat brigades out by March 31 of 2008. It provides a concrete plan for shifting security responsibilities to where they belong: with the Iraqis.
I have visited with our troops in Iraq, and I have talked to those who have been training the Iraqi security forces. They have told me that the U.S. troops have finished their job and that Iraq needs to step up and start securing their country. Americans cannot continue to do it for them.
Our bill recognizes that the President’s escalation plan is a continuation of his failed “stay the course” slogan and it would not allow the increase of troop levels without congressional approval.
Mr. Speaker, the United States cannot win the peace in Iraq. The Iraqis must be the ones to do that. Our bill recognizes this reality and creates a surge in diplomacy, not troops, by creating a special U.S. envoy that will help build relationships between Iraq and their neighbors. Our bill is a strategy for success in Iraq and is the best way to bring our brave men and women home as quickly and safely as possible.
While I strongly believe that today we should be debating and passing our binding solution, H.R. 787, I know that this week’s debate is the first real debate we have had on Iraq in more than 4 years. In this week alone, we will more than quadruple the amount of time given to debate this war since it began.
Thank you, Speaker Pelosi, for bringing this important matter to the floor. This resolution is a critical step in getting our men and women out of this ugly mess, a full blown civil war in Iraq. I support today’s resolution, which joins with the American people in sending the President a loud and clear message that escalation is not the answer. We need to focus on getting our troops out of Iraq as safely and quickly as possible and making sure that the Iraqis step up and assume the security responsibilities for their country.
I also rise to tell those who have served, those who are serving in Iraq today, and their proud families thank you. Your nation thanks you for your great service to our country.
Eli Faircloth spoke on Tuesday on Congressman Thompson’s behalf.
She told us he had spoken on the floor in support of the Democratic resolution, here are his thoughts:
Mr. THOMPSON of California:
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for recognizing me for time.
Mr. Speaker and Members, as a combat veteran, from the bottom of my heart, I say thank you to the brave men and women who have served in Iraq, each with great distinction.
Our troops have done an outstanding job. They have done all that has been asked of them and more. They have performed with the utmost professionalism, making all of us very proud.
Now, I believe it is past time that we start bringing these brave men and women home. They should be home with their families, not in the middle of Iraq’s civil war. Moreover, we shouldn’t be sending more troops into Iraq’s civil war. Some of our service-members have been on two, three, and even four tours of duty in Iraq already.
This escalation would put too much strain on our military and not just our troops. Much of our military’s equipment is damaged. It will take years and billions of dollars to repair it and replace it. Nearly every Reserve and National Guard member has been mobilized. The escalation is in no one’s best interest.
Two weeks ago I joined with my colleague Patrick Murphy from Pennsylvania, a decorated Army captain who served in Iraq, to introduce binding legislation to begin a phased redeployment of our troops out of Iraq. Our bill, which has already attracted 20 co-authors from both sides of the aisle and has a companion bill in the Senate, provides a practical and comprehensive strategy for ending our military involvement in Iraq. It sets a firm deadline for phased redeployment of our troops beginning May 1 with all combat brigades out by March 31 of 2008. It provides a concrete plan for shifting security responsibilities to where they belong: with the Iraqis.
I have visited with our troops in Iraq, and I have talked to those who have been training the Iraqi security forces. They have told me that the U.S. troops have finished their job and that Iraq needs to step up and start securing their country. Americans cannot continue to do it for them.
Our bill recognizes that the President’s escalation plan is a continuation of his failed “stay the course” slogan and it would not allow the increase of troop levels without congressional approval.
Mr. Speaker, the United States cannot win the peace in Iraq. The Iraqis must be the ones to do that. Our bill recognizes this reality and creates a surge in diplomacy, not troops, by creating a special U.S. envoy that will help build relationships between Iraq and their neighbors. Our bill is a strategy for success in Iraq and is the best way to bring our brave men and women home as quickly and safely as possible.
While I strongly believe that today we should be debating and passing our binding solution, H.R. 787, I know that this week’s debate is the first real debate we have had on Iraq in more than 4 years. In this week alone, we will more than quadruple the amount of time given to debate this war since it began.
Thank you, Speaker Pelosi, for bringing this important matter to the floor. This resolution is a critical step in getting our men and women out of this ugly mess, a full blown civil war in Iraq. I support today’s resolution, which joins with the American people in sending the President a loud and clear message that escalation is not the answer. We need to focus on getting our troops out of Iraq as safely and quickly as possible and making sure that the Iraqis step up and assume the security responsibilities for their country.
I also rise to tell those who have served, those who are serving in Iraq today, and their proud families thank you. Your nation thanks you for your great service to our country.
Eli Faircloth spoke on Tuesday on Congressman Thompson’s behalf.
She told us he had spoken on the floor in support of the Democratic resolution, here are his thoughts:
Mr. THOMPSON of California:
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for recognizing me for time.
Mr. Speaker and Members, as a combat veteran, from the bottom of my heart, I say thank you to the brave men and women who have served in Iraq, each with great distinction.
Our troops have done an outstanding job. They have done all that has been asked of them and more. They have performed with the utmost professionalism, making all of us very proud.
Now, I believe it is past time that we start bringing these brave men and women home. They should be home with their families, not in the middle of Iraq’s civil war. Moreover, we shouldn’t be sending more troops into Iraq’s civil war. Some of our service-members have been on two, three, and even four tours of duty in Iraq already.
This escalation would put too much strain on our military and not just our troops. Much of our military’s equipment is damaged. It will take years and billions of dollars to repair it and replace it. Nearly every Reserve and National Guard member has been mobilized. The escalation is in no one’s best interest.
Two weeks ago I joined with my colleague Patrick Murphy from Pennsylvania, a decorated Army captain who served in Iraq, to introduce binding legislation to begin a phased redeployment of our troops out of Iraq. Our bill, which has already attracted 20 co-authors from both sides of the aisle and has a companion bill in the Senate, provides a practical and comprehensive strategy for ending our military involvement in Iraq. It sets a firm deadline for phased redeployment of our troops beginning May 1 with all combat brigades out by March 31 of 2008. It provides a concrete plan for shifting security responsibilities to where they belong: with the Iraqis.
I have visited with our troops in Iraq, and I have talked to those who have been training the Iraqi security forces. They have told me that the U.S. troops have finished their job and that Iraq needs to step up and start securing their country. Americans cannot continue to do it for them.
Our bill recognizes that the President’s escalation plan is a continuation of his failed “stay the course” slogan and it would not allow the increase of troop levels without congressional approval.
Mr. Speaker, the United States cannot win the peace in Iraq. The Iraqis must be the ones to do that. Our bill recognizes this reality and creates a surge in diplomacy, not troops, by creating a special U.S. envoy that will help build relationships between Iraq and their neighbors. Our bill is a strategy for success in Iraq and is the best way to bring our brave men and women home as quickly and safely as possible.
While I strongly believe that today we should be debating and passing our binding solution, H.R. 787, I know that this week’s debate is the first real debate we have had on Iraq in more than 4 years. In this week alone, we will more than quadruple the amount of time given to debate this war since it began.
Thank you, Speaker Pelosi, for bringing this important matter to the floor. This resolution is a critical step in getting our men and women out of this ugly mess, a full blown civil war in Iraq. I support today’s resolution, which joins with the American people in sending the President a loud and clear message that escalation is not the answer. We need to focus on getting our troops out of Iraq as safely and quickly as possible and making sure that the Iraqis step up and assume the security responsibilities for their country.
I also rise to tell those who have served, those who are serving in Iraq today, and their proud families thank you. Your nation thanks you for your great service to our country.
“This escalation would put too much strain on our military …
“The escalation is in no one’s best interest.
“Our bill recognizes that the President’s escalation plan is a continuation …
“… a loud and clear message that escalation is not the answer.”
I find it funny that Mike Thompson and his partisans refer to Bush’s policy as “an escalation,” while the Republicans are using “a surge.”
I suppose each side tested the words with focus groups and found that “surge” is less unpopular than “escalation,” and hence the Repubs are going with “surge” while the Dems are sticking with “escalation.”
Escalation was, of course, the Johnson policy toward Vietnam in 1965. That may have ruined the hopes of that word for another 100 years.
Regarding our congressman’s effort, I thought this was his best rehtorical line:
“Mr. Speaker, the United States cannot win the peace in Iraq. The Iraqis must be the ones to do that. Our bill recognizes this reality and creates a surge in diplomacy, not troops, by creating a special U.S. envoy that will help build relationships between Iraq and their neighbors.”
That, I think, is a clever re-use of surge. However, I wonder if “surge” itself will become associated with failure in the next year or so, cramming it into Frank Luntz’s closet of words that pols should never use.
“This escalation would put too much strain on our military …
“The escalation is in no one’s best interest.
“Our bill recognizes that the President’s escalation plan is a continuation …
“… a loud and clear message that escalation is not the answer.”
I find it funny that Mike Thompson and his partisans refer to Bush’s policy as “an escalation,” while the Republicans are using “a surge.”
I suppose each side tested the words with focus groups and found that “surge” is less unpopular than “escalation,” and hence the Repubs are going with “surge” while the Dems are sticking with “escalation.”
Escalation was, of course, the Johnson policy toward Vietnam in 1965. That may have ruined the hopes of that word for another 100 years.
Regarding our congressman’s effort, I thought this was his best rehtorical line:
“Mr. Speaker, the United States cannot win the peace in Iraq. The Iraqis must be the ones to do that. Our bill recognizes this reality and creates a surge in diplomacy, not troops, by creating a special U.S. envoy that will help build relationships between Iraq and their neighbors.”
That, I think, is a clever re-use of surge. However, I wonder if “surge” itself will become associated with failure in the next year or so, cramming it into Frank Luntz’s closet of words that pols should never use.
“This escalation would put too much strain on our military …
“The escalation is in no one’s best interest.
“Our bill recognizes that the President’s escalation plan is a continuation …
“… a loud and clear message that escalation is not the answer.”
I find it funny that Mike Thompson and his partisans refer to Bush’s policy as “an escalation,” while the Republicans are using “a surge.”
I suppose each side tested the words with focus groups and found that “surge” is less unpopular than “escalation,” and hence the Repubs are going with “surge” while the Dems are sticking with “escalation.”
Escalation was, of course, the Johnson policy toward Vietnam in 1965. That may have ruined the hopes of that word for another 100 years.
Regarding our congressman’s effort, I thought this was his best rehtorical line:
“Mr. Speaker, the United States cannot win the peace in Iraq. The Iraqis must be the ones to do that. Our bill recognizes this reality and creates a surge in diplomacy, not troops, by creating a special U.S. envoy that will help build relationships between Iraq and their neighbors.”
That, I think, is a clever re-use of surge. However, I wonder if “surge” itself will become associated with failure in the next year or so, cramming it into Frank Luntz’s closet of words that pols should never use.
“This escalation would put too much strain on our military …
“The escalation is in no one’s best interest.
“Our bill recognizes that the President’s escalation plan is a continuation …
“… a loud and clear message that escalation is not the answer.”
I find it funny that Mike Thompson and his partisans refer to Bush’s policy as “an escalation,” while the Republicans are using “a surge.”
I suppose each side tested the words with focus groups and found that “surge” is less unpopular than “escalation,” and hence the Repubs are going with “surge” while the Dems are sticking with “escalation.”
Escalation was, of course, the Johnson policy toward Vietnam in 1965. That may have ruined the hopes of that word for another 100 years.
Regarding our congressman’s effort, I thought this was his best rehtorical line:
“Mr. Speaker, the United States cannot win the peace in Iraq. The Iraqis must be the ones to do that. Our bill recognizes this reality and creates a surge in diplomacy, not troops, by creating a special U.S. envoy that will help build relationships between Iraq and their neighbors.”
That, I think, is a clever re-use of surge. However, I wonder if “surge” itself will become associated with failure in the next year or so, cramming it into Frank Luntz’s closet of words that pols should never use.